Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: garrido on August 02, 2001, 08:04:00 AM
-
Hiya dudes:
That one is single opinion, I dont try to offend nobody or nobody offends me.
IMHO I think that the GM in AH doesnt fit to real situations, and i say that btw:
I've calculated (not exactly) that of the numerous times that i'd been killed the distance to takes place over 25% from 700y, of this percentage almost half over 850y, some it damages the airplane at 1000y seriously, (buff's killed me numerous times to 1.2k), but these kills were due figthers that use Hispanos, Type 99 or a massive 6/8 0.5" machine guns burst.
Just a few times a 190/109 hit me over 300y, have to keep in a straight path to let them hit me, only w few moves then the great dispersion from the MG515, their low ROF (Rating of fire) and vibration it does that the shots from highers distances of 300y are very imprecises, w deflection they must be less than 200y and with very few G's, hits from 450y by these airplanes are unusual, twice in the time that I play AH, and over 500y never.
Usually I feel safe w 109, 190, Yak, La7 from 450y, nevertheless, when that airplane is some with Hispanos or Type 99 I'm not safe until being to 1k of them. I continue asking just like in others post that I have , So exceptional was the Hispanos, the 0.5 " or 99 Type, and the MG131, MG151 or the MK108 r so bad to hit anything more than 300y away suppose an excessive calculation of the trajectory and the bullet fall ??.
I know that the MK108 had a range of 300y although its reach was much greater, "la tension sin apenas caida de la bala del MG151 era de 600y" (sorry cant translate this well), I do not know the ranges of Hispanos or the Type 99 that although are 1.2k HTC musn't allow those reaches for the kill, im agree about the hit but not the kill, not enough for serious dmg, and why? is easy, of all the stories that I have readed, only in one of them it is spoken of a kill from 800y with normal sights, when the K14 sight was introduced the precision of the firing increase of an impressive form, but even so the real pilots of the WWII did not even shoot but he finds of 400/450y for several reasons:
a) They exposed the position.
b) The burst had to be so long to make a great damage that the ammunition consumption was great.
c) It was only valid when the enemy airplane remained during a period of sufficient time in the same course and speed so that the fire control "computer" compensated the angle of crossing of the bullets and the airplane, but the speed or course change of anyone of the implied airplanes waste of ammo.
d) The allied airplanes and japonese DIDNT have ammo counter, with which they had to be cautious in end with the duration of his ammo.
I imagine, that you know many cases of kills from 600y, many from 700y, some of 800y, but accept with me that the percentage of habitual kills from over 500y was not nothing and nor of distant spot they approached 1% of the total of kills made in the WWII .
I believe that in AH this one type of kills r more than 20% of the total, in fact is habitual to see as somebody shoots to the airplane that you have to 350y and when sights back you see him that it is to 500y of you, with which is shooting to more of 800y and in addition it kill him. Who has not seen this?.
If HTC annuls the ammuo counters of those airplanes that really did not take and in addition leave the icon to distance between 600 and 1.500y surely that percentage of kills to those distance wil be much more similar to the historical reality.
At another moment I will speak of the 0,5 " of the Buff's, of that assumption 26% over the data of the NACA in Spitfire roll rate, of UFO N1K-J2 already is everything said, from Pseudo UFO Spitfire IX, by the way, it is incredible how it accelerates and it recovers E and that it loses in the turns this airplane, if even accelerates raising a barbarism, of its stalls in almost impossible, of its possibility of having the nose in vertical to less than 100 mph, of... etc, etc. :eek:
If the Spitfire were thus in the reality, so that the P47 and P51 of escort wanted the allies, if with 100 Spits with drop tanks escorting to 1000 B17 had been enough to win the war in 2 weeks? So that 5000 airplanes in Normandía if with 200 Spits had destroyed everything in the North of Europe? Nobody is going to recognize that Spitfire IX this overmodelled? that it is going to happen with Spitfire XIV when in the game? I hope that no of the members of HTC has seen the trilogy of Star War and it puts proton guns in the Spitfires, N1K-j2 and similars.
greetings
SUPONGO
PD: I am not LWhinner, and although it was it, my opinion is supported by which I hope leave its opinion here written, not only those that are in against. kills from 1000y? I dont beleave.
Hola amigos:
Quiero indicar que es solo una opinion, no pretendo ofender a nadie ni que nadie me ofenda a mi.
Pienso que el modelo de disparo de AH no se ciñe a la realidad en absoluto, y digo esto por lo siguiente:
He calculado (de manera imprecisa) que de las numerosas veces que me derriban la distancia a la que se produce el derribo supera el 25% las 700y, de este porcentaje casi la mitad a superado las 850y,y alguno me daña gravemente el avion a 1000y, (los buff's me han derribado numerosas veces a 1.2k) pero curiosamente estos derribos se producen por cazas que usan Hispanos, Type 99 o utilizan la saturacion de 6/8 ametralladoras de 0.5". En contadas ocasiones un 190 o 109 me derriban a mas de 300y, he de estar quieto para que acierten, a poco que me mueva la gran dispersion del MG151, su bajo ROF y su gran vibracion hace que los tiros a mayores distancias de 300y sean muy dificiles, en deflexion deben ser a menos de 200y y con muy pocas G's, Impactos a 450y por parte de estos aviones son rarisimo, solo 2 veces en el tiempo que llevo jugando AH, y a mas de 500y ninguna vez. Habitualmente me considero seguro cuando tengo un 109, 190, Yak, La7 detras de mi a una distancia de 450y, sin embargo, cuando ese avion es alguno con Hispanos o type 99 no estoy seguro hasta estar a 1k de ellos. Sigo preguntando lo mismo que en otros post que he puesto, Tan excepcional era el Hispano de 20mm, el 0.5", o el Type 99 japones y tan malos los MG131, MG151 o el MK108 para que acertar con ellos mas de 300y suponga un excesivo calculo de la trayectoria y caida de la bala?
Se, que historicamente el MK108 tenia un alcance eficaz de 300y aunque su alcance era mucho mayor, la tension sin apenas caida de la bala del MG151 era de 600y aproximadamente, desconozco los alcances eficaces del Hispano o Type 99 que aunque sea superior a 1.2k HTC no deberia permitir esos alcances para el derribo, y por que? pues facil, de todos los relatos que he leido, solo en uno de ellos se habla de un derribo a 800y con miras normales, cuando se introdujo la mira K14 la precision del disparo aumento de una forma impresionante, pero aun asi los pilotos reales de la WWII no disparaban mas halla de las 400/450y por varias razones:
a) Delataban la posicion al enemigo.
b) La rastudmuffina debia ser tan larga para realizar un gran daño que el consumo de municiones era grande.
c)Solo era valido cuando el avion enemigo permanecia durante un periodo de tiempo suficiente en el mismo rumbo y velocidad para que el calculador de tiro compensase el angulo de cruce de las balas y el avion, al mas minimo cambio de rumbo o velocidad de cualquiera de los aviones implicados suponia el malgastar municiones.
d) Los aviones aliados y japonese NO tenian contador de municiones, con lo que debian ser cautelosos en extremo con la duracion de su municion.
Imagino, que ustedes conoceran muchos casos de derribos a mas de 600y, de muchos de 700y, de algunos de 800y, pero reconozcan conmigo que el porcentaje de derribos a distancia superiores a 500y no eran nada habituales y ni de lejos se acercaran al 1% del total de derribos producidos en la WWII. Yo creo que en AH este tipo de derribos es de mas del 20% del total, de hecho es habitual ver como alguien dispara al avion que tienes a 350y y cuando miras atras le ves que esta a 500y de ti, con lo cual esta disparando a mas de 800y y ademas le derriba. Quien no a visto esto?
Si HTC anula los contadores de municion de aquellos aviones que realmente no los llevaban y ademas quita el icono de distancia entre las 600 y 1.500y seguro que ese porcentaje de derribos a esas distancia se situa mucho mas parecido a la realidad historica.
En otro momento hablare de las 0.5" de los Buff's.
De ese supuesto 26% de mas en el roll rate del Spitfire con respecto a los datos del NACA.
Del UFO N1K-J2 ya esta todo dicho.
Del Pseudo UFO Spitfire IX, por cierto, es increible como acelera y recupera la poca E que pierde en los giros este avion, si incluso acelera subiendo una barbaridad, de su entrada en perdida casi imposibles, de su posibilidad de tener el morro en vertical a menos de 100 mph, de ... etc, etc.
Si el Spitfire fue asi en la realidad, para que querian los aliados el P47 y P51 de escolta, si con 100 Spits con depositos lanzables protegiendo a 1000 B17 hubiesen bastado para ganar la guerra en 2 semanas? Para que 5000 aviones en Normandia si con 200 Spits hubiesen destrozado todo en el Norte de Europa? Nadie va a reconocer que el Spitfire IX esta overmodelled? que va a pasar con el Spitfire XIV cuando entre en el juego?
Espero que ninguno de los miembros de HTC haya visto la trilogia de Star War y nos ponga cañones de protones en los Spitfires, N1K-J2 y similares.
Un saludo
SUPONGO
P.D.: No soy un lloron de la LW, y aunque lo fuese, mi opinion esta apoyada por muchos que espero dejen aqui su opinion escrita, no solo los que esten en contra.
Derribos a 1000y? No me lo creo
-
You are missing some information here, which is leading you to an invalid conclusion.
1. The range you observe from your computer when being fired upon is NOT the range the enemy is hitting you from. That is calculated on HIS computer, and network lag means that what he sees and what you see are not the same. Thus, when you see 800 yards on your screen and get killed, the enemy may very well have killed you at 600 yards on his computer, and that is what counts. The higher the closure and faster the flight speeds, the greater that difference may be. I've seen the difference between 50 and 500 or more yards depending on the conditions and the network at the time. In a high-speed head-on pass the difference between what you see and what he sees will often be up around 500 yards. In a slow tail-chase situation, it would be much lower, down around 50-100 yards I would guess.
2. We have a more stable environment, more reliable equipment, and most importantly 1,000 times more experience! In Aces High we have each fired our guns and shot down planes thousands and thousands of times. Even those who have only been playing these games for a few months have more experience in combat than the highest scoring WWII aces. We are better shots then they were in WWII, it's a fact. We are also not being bounced around, experienceing G forces, freezing our nuts off, or in danger of immenent death.
3. Buff guns have a range concession because of lag. Because of network latency or "lag", if the buff guns were realistic, you could sit behind the buff at 1k and hose away, hitting him while he could not hit you. To avoid this problem, buff guns have a longer effective range than fighter guns.
Overall however, I believe gunnery in Aces High is very well modelled. We acheive different results than they did in WWII due to the reasons I mentioned above, not because the guns are incorrectly modelled.
-
And that is why Lepthurn is a trainer.
-SW
-
Let me say this to all of you who have never fired anything bigger than a soft drink straw: If you have six .50 cal machine guns spread out across twenty feet and harmonized to converge at three hundred feet your cone of fire at nine hundred feet should be something on the order a sixty foot impact cone.
You be your own judge as to whether a single engined fighter fits nicely into a sixty foot diameter impact area :eek:
Y
-
I also agree with Lephty.
I have been killed at 700 -- 1000 yds but this is NOT the norm. Also...there was not one but several bursts.
AND....I have been killed by Luftwaffe as well as Allied planes at those ranges.
Supongo...I don't want to start a flame war with you, but R4M has argued the hispanos and 50 cal's to death long ago. ;)
-
Hi friends:
you do not read or my notes, can that are the translation, in the WWII did not go off to those distances, in AH if by the reasons that I indicate, of all ways like me who somebody that flies 190 or 109 writes here its experiences, wanted to know that you fly. not of this, but the cone of a convergence to 300ft says that it is of 20ft? it can well be, almost safe, but to 900y surely that he is but ample and with very few together bullets like making damage, something but of 60ft. Another one of my questions is if so bad are 20mm and 30mm German. By the way, they have proven you to shoot to a automovil (almost 2 times the wide one of an airplane) 20 firings with rifle of precision to 1000y and in movement? whichever successes?
a greeting
Supongo
-
The 20mm Mauser is one of the most lethal weapons in AH if you fire and score hits at the range you have your convergence set to.
The following is two films of me flying the 109G2. First one I get 3 or 4 kills and the second film I get 7 kills with a single 20mm cannon. http://gandalf.totalcs.com/ahinfo/mark/g2-1.zip (http://gandalf.totalcs.com/ahinfo/mark/g2-1.zip) http://gandalf.totalcs.com/ahinfo/mark/g2-2.zip (http://gandalf.totalcs.com/ahinfo/mark/g2-2.zip)
Also, you need to remember no cannons are alike.
I wouldn't expect two Japanese cannons of different makes to have the same trajectory, hitting power or explosive power.
-SW
-
AH need diferent tracers for diferent caliber !!!!!!!!!!!
model the diferent trajectory for 50 caliber tracers and real bulets!!!!
Lw canons have bad rof but tracers was sane balisticly like HE rounds
diferent tracers for 20 and 30 mmm like it was in real life plzzz
reduce 190 MGs vibration rate the shake the plane more like 8 50 caliber in jug wings
-
At another moment I will speak of the 0,5 " of the Buff's, of that assumption 26% over the data of the NACA in Spitfire roll rate, of UFO N1K-J2 already is everything said, from Pseudo UFO Spitfire IX, by the way, it is incredible how it accelerates and it recovers E and that it loses in the turns this airplane, if even accelerates raising a barbarism, of its stalls in almost impossible, of its possibility of having the nose in vertical to less than 100 mph, of... etc, etc.
If the Spitfire were thus in the reality, so that the P47 and P51 of escort wanted the allies, if with 100 Spits with drop tanks escorting to 1000 B17 had been enough to win the war in 2 weeks? So that 5000 airplanes in Normandía if with 200 Spits had destroyed everything in the North of Europe? Nobody is going to recognize that Spitfire IX this overmodelled?
Regarding the Spitfire, in AH almost all the planes roll too fast at high speeds, too slowly at low speeds. The Spit is no exception. Judge for yourself wether poor low speed rollrate is more of a burden for a slow plane like the Spit, which does best by keeping the fight slow, or a much faster plane like the 190D9, which does best by keeping the speed of a fight high.
The Spitfire should retain E well. It has a very low wingloading, and very good power to weight ratio. That means it will bleed less E in a turn, and recover it faster.
Looking at your stats for tour 18 Garrido, you have an average of 1.7 kills per death, against the Spitfire IX you have a 3 to 1 average. Flying in the Spitfire IX you have 4 deaths 0 kills. You do much better than average against the Spit IX, worse than average when flying the Spit IX. What makes you think they are overmodelled?
In real life, large numbers of Spitfires had clipped wings, which give much better rollrates at all speeds than the AH Spit. Be thankfull you don't have to face a more realistic Spit IX in AH. The vast majority of the real ones produced were faster below 20,000ft, had a higher rollrate, much better climb etc. They also fought mainly against the Fw190A series, not the Dora, and the 109G6, not G10/K4.
-
if you want to die at a closer range you must slow down and let me catch you, and stop wiggleing all over the sky
-
Only question I have is relative to convergence. If a planes convergence is set at say 400yrds how big would the cone of fire be at 600 or 800yds. How different would that cone of fire be on wing mounted guns and on cowl gunz.
How much lethality is lost firing outside of your convergence.
I find it hard to believe that lag is the only reason I see this. Especially since there only only a few cannon/mg types that deliver death shots consisyantly outside of any rational cone of fire.
I now defer to those more qualified then myself to answer. :)
Thanks in advance
-
S! Lephturn
As you say, in AH conditions are "ideal".
You are quite correct. In AH there are none of the atmospheric factors which will cause bullets in a real enviroment to diverge considerably from their intended courses. Not to mention the inaccuracies caused by the vibration of the guns firing, etc. etc.
The original poster is quite correct in suggesting the accuracy is too high.
A comment to Yeager in regards to the following:
"Let me say this to all of you who have never fired anything bigger than a soft drink straw: If you have six .50 cal machine guns spread out across twenty feet and harmonized to converge at three hundred feet your cone of fire at nine hundred feet should be something on the order a sixty foot impact cone.
You be your own judge as to whether a single engined fighter fits nicely into a sixty foot diameter impact area"
An aircraft may fit into that diameter, but what is the effect of those scatter rounds hitting? Much of the destructive power of aircraft weapons is due to them being concentrated at a single point. Multiple hits on a structural point will cause it to fail. On the other hand single rounds scattered to impact singly will have very little effect.
-
Hola:
Primera cuestion:
Estoy deacuerdo con todo lo que se dice, no significa que esteis en lo cierto, segun las explicaciones que se dan, entonces el 100% de las veces que ocurren esos derribos es por causa del lag?, quiere decir esto: si un avion X (pongamos un Nik2, pero no es el unico, lo tomo como ejemplo por qu es el mas relevante), y un avion Y (190/109. lo tomo por ejemplo por la misma causa), estan en mi cola,(la mayoria de las veces, por eso hablo con conocimiento de causa :D ) a unas 600/700y, segun las explicaciones dadas si tengo lag ellos me verian a 400/500, distancia totalmente aceptable para un derribo, como es que el 190/109 (y otros tipos de aviones) no son capaces de acertarme, y sin embargo el Nik2 me da de lleno?. El lag solo ocurre cuando estas siendo perseguido?. :rolleyes:
Segunda cuestion:
Acepto que los Hispanos y los Type 99 tengan un alcance superior a 1000y, cosa que no puedo asegurar por que no tengo esos datos, pero creeis que un impacto a esa distancia tiene la suficiente energia cinetica para arrancarte la cola de una rastudmuffina? y si es lag por que no veo disparos a mas de 1.3k, segun las teorias expuestas, ellos me verian a 800/900y y si el rango efectivo de los Hispanos/Type99 es 1ky por que no disparan?.
Solo quiero saber, eso es todo
Mis respetos a la comunidad de AH <S>
Orka - JG52 "Los Bravos"
TRANSLATION :)
Hiya there:
Firts question:
Im agree w everything that is saying here, thats not means is right, according to the explanations then 100% of the times that happen those kills are because of lag?, thats mean the picture: if an airplane X (we take a Nik2, but he is not the unique one, we take for example so that he is the most), and an airplane Y (190/109, we take for example by the same cause), they r on my tail (most of the time, for that reason I speak with knowledge of cause :D ), bout 600/700y, according to the given explanations if I have lag they would see me 400/500, totally acceptable distance for a kill, how it is that the 190/109 (and other types of airplanes) are not able to hit me, and nevertheless the Nik2 gives me a full burst?. Lag only happens when you are being chased?. :rolleyes:
Second question:
I accept that Hispanos 6 Type 99 have a 1000y range, thing that I cannot assure so that I do not have those data, but do yo think that an impact from that range has enough kinetic energy to put out the tail on a burst?, even on a single pin?, and if is lag, why I do not see shots more than 1.3k? according to the exposed theories, they would see me 800/900y and if the effective range of the Hispanos/Type99 is 1000y why they do not shoot?. or is lag too :D
Just want to know, thats all.
my respect to all AH community <S>.
Orka - JG52 " Los Bravos"
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
Only question I have is relative to convergence. If a planes convergence is set at say 400yrds how big would the cone of fire be at 600 or 800yds. How different would that cone of fire be on wing mounted guns and on cowl gunz.
How much lethality is lost firing outside of your convergence.
Thanks in advance
LOOK HERE (http://www.concentric.net/~reaper/gunnery/gunnery.html)
-
FWIW, as an example of distance affecting lethality:
I was runn....err.....extending away from Nash in his N1K, I in my P51D, and he hit me
at what read out on my FE between about 800-900 yards with at least 5 seperate pings.
I lost my left flap and right aileron. Had he hit me between 400-500 yards I would have blown up quite nicely before the last two rounds made it to target. Impacts from modeled projectiles in AH at longer ranges have markedly decreased lethality.
Y
-
Good website Jekyll, thanks!
-
Friend's:
Moan so bad my english, does not allow to understand post of answer, asi well me that, you pardon if I commit any error.
I continue saying that to GM this very badly modeled, being the difference between types of arms and others of the same very great caliber and epoca (Hispanic, type 99 versus MG151) (0,5 " versus MG131).
Here watches the posted direction on the dispersion, and is surprising as that dispersion enlarges of incredible way as the distance separates of 300y of convergence. Quiza understands it bad, but if that is certain, it demonstrates that to AH this badly, if with 6/8 of 0,5 " single one few impacts are obtained so, surely nonda6naria one to the enemy airplane, with rastudmuffinas so short of Hispanic serious almost impossible to guess right. I asked and I requested answers. Who is able to guess right to a automovil to 1000y with rifle in movement (double size of wide that an airplane)? Nobody that flies LW to had these same problems habitually?
On the other hand, always it is Lag? single there is lag when they go detras of my to 1000y (really they say that they are or they can be 700/800, and it even seems to me much distance like guessing right) but if I am really placed to 400 detras of the enemy airplane not this to 200/300 but that this to those 400y or can that but? explanation please.
All those with which I have spoken have same lag that I? WHO MUST RESPOND to THESE QUESTIONS IS HTC, we must give ours opinion but we do not have to really discuss but we know I cosay that he uses HTC in the game.
Swulfe friend, you the fact of being trainer gives reliability, if I say to him that I am trainer of the JG52 in AH, WB and WWIIOL in 109 that gives but credibility to my words? I instruct the pilots so that they fly coo was really made, so that they shoot to less of 300y like towards in 98% of the cases in the WWII (although soon in the MA I am a suicidal crazy person who does not respect the flight of the 109 and he puts it in TnB against nick or Spit, but the character can to me :)
Lephturn Friend: Everything is not lag, but it is not it.
Nashwan Friend: Certainly all the airplanes of AH estan bad in roll rate, but not as much as that 26%, except the 190 that goes below real his roll rate. Of the 109 I do not have data, although I believe that his roll rate to but of 375 mph must much be but slow that the present one, also I say that its control to baja/media speed is far below at which debio to be. Gustaria who HTC gave data me of CV of Spit IX, 109 G10 and 190A5/d9 at level of the sea, 10,000 ft. 15.000 ft and 20,000 ft, like max. weights of these airplanes, coefficient drag, acceleration, etc. know well as each type of airplane must conserve the E. If, the Spit can to turn, to conserve the best E and to accelerate like a ray, but is that the turns so closed, the ascents so pronounced that they make the Spits seem not to affect in the measurement that it must to be in reality to his E, and its recovery, by logic, it mustto be but slow.
A greeting
SUPONGO
Lamento mi ingles tan malo, no me permite entender bien los post de respuesta, asi que, perdonad si cometo algun error.
Sigo diciendo que el GM esta muy mal modelado, siendo la diferencia entre unos tipos de armas y otras del mismo calibre y epoca muy grandes (hispano, type 99 vs MG151) (0.5" vs MG131).
Mire la direccion posteada aqui sobre la dispersion, y es sorprendente como esa dispersion se agranda de manera increible a medida que la distancia se separa de las 300y de convergencia. Quiza lo entienda mal, pero si eso es cierto, demuestra que AH esta mal, si con 6/8 de 0.5" solo se consiguen tan pocos impactos, seguramente no dañaria al avion enemigo, con rastudmuffinas tan cortas de hispano seria casi imposible de acertar. Pregunté y pedí respuestas.
Quien es capaz de acertar a un automovil a 1000y con un rifle de precision en movimiento (doble tamaño de ancho que un avion)?
Nadie que vuele habitualmente LW a tenido estos mismos problemas?
Por otro lado, siempre es Lag? solo hay lag cuando van detras de mi a 1000y (realmente dicen que son o pueden ser 700/800, y aun me parece mucha distancia como para acertar) pero si yo me coloco a 400 detras del avion enemigo no esta realmente a 200/300 sino que esta a esas 400y o puede que mas? expliquemelo.
Todos aquellos con los que he hablado tienen el mismo lag que yo?
QUIEN DEBE RESPONDER A ESTAS CUESTIONES ES HTC, nosotros debemos dar nuestra opinion pero no debemos discutir realmente sino sabemos el codigo que usa HTC en el juego.
Swulfe amigo, segun usted el hecho de ser entrenador da fiabilidad, si yo le digo que soy entrenador del JG52 en AH, WB y WWIIOL en 109 eso da mas credibilidad a mis palabras?
Yo instruyo a los pilotos para que vuelen coo se hizo realmente, para que disparen a menos de 300y como se hacia en el 98% de los casos en la WWII (a pesar de que luego en la MA yo sea un loco suicida que no respeta el vuelo del 109 y lo meta en TnB contra nick o Spit, pero me puede el caracter :) ).
Amigo Lephturn:
No todo es lag, ojala, pero no lo es.
Amigo Nashwan:
Ciertamente todos los aviones de AH estan mal en el roll rate, pero no tanto como ese 26%, excepto el 190 que va por debajo de su roll rate real. Del 109 no tengo datos, aunque creo que su roll rate a mas de 375 mph debe ser mucho mas lento que el actual, tambien digo que su control a baja/media velocidad es muy inferior al que debio ser.
Me gustaria que HTC diese datos de CV del Spit IX, 109 G10 y 190A5/D9 a nivel del mar, 10.000 ft. 15.000 ft y 20.000 ft, asi como pesos maximos de estos aviones, coeficiente drag, aceleracion, etc. Sabriamos bien como debe conservar la E cada tipo de avion.
Si, el Spit podria virar, conservar la E mejor y acelerar como un rayo, pero es que los virajes tan cerrados, las subidas tan pronunciadas que hacen los Spits parecen no afectar en la medida que deberia ser en la realidad a su E, y su recuperacion, por logica, deberia ser mas lenta.
Un saludo
SUPONGO
-
Supongo,
Yes, it's not all lag. Lag is only one of the factors here, but it is a factor. Despite all the claims, I have yet to see a film from the attackers perspective where any plane gets consistent kills at long ranges. Even finding one single example of a kill outside of say 700 from the shooter's perspective is challenging. It does happen... everybody gets lucky, but it doesn't happen often. The vast majority of all kills in AH still happen at close range in my experience. Folks seem to selectively remember only the ones where they get killed when they thought they were safe... it's only natural.
Don't forget that we are simply better pilots and better gunners than WWII pilots ever were. We have far more experience. We can consistently hit our targets in situations that most WWII pilots never could. We're better at it, we have more practice.
Buzzbait,
<S> :) I have not seen evidence to suggest that accuracy is too high. All I see is that HTC gave us guns modelled as accurately as they reasonably could. The results were different than some folks seem to expect, and I've seen all kinds of claims of long range accuracy being too high. What I have not seen is any evidence that suggests to me that there is something wrong with the modelling. I'm open to discuss it of course, and I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. It's just that every time I personally gathered evidence, what I found seemed right. I used to think that the long range gunnery was "off" here as well at first. Then I did some tests, filmed some fights, and tried some things. The evidence I gathered suggested that my perceptions didn't match what was really happening. By that I mean even though it felt like I was being killed at long range on a regular basis, filming everything showed that it was pretty damn rare. Trying to make long range kills myself illustrated to me just how difficult it really is. Take up a C-Hog and TRY to get long range kills, even set your convergence to 600 yards first. I think you'll be surprised at the results, I know I was.
BTW, just in case I want to mention this again. If you guys do any testing, please FILM IT! I can arrange to get the films posted on the internet for you if needed. If you do find a problem and can back it up with film as evidence, I am sure HTC would investigate the problem.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Lephturn ]
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
The evidence I gathered suggested that my perceptions didn't match what was really happening. By that I mean even though it felt like I was being killed at long range on a regular basis, filming everything showed that it was pretty damn rare...
If you do find a problem and can back it up with film as evidence, I am sure HTC would investigate the problem.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Lephturn ]
Totally agree Leph. Particularly on the long range kills and the famous "one ping kill".
Reminds of of McDonald's slogan almost:
"Over 2 Billion reported, not one filmed!"
:)
-
Supongo, don't take this the wrong way.. But Lephturn has been a trainer for a long time.
The fact that he knows what he's talking about makes him an excellent trainer. I said, "and that's why you are a trainer Leph" because he proved again that he knows what he's talking about. He's great at what he does and knows what he's talking about.
Just because you read in some book that the pilot's didn't open fire until close range does not mean that because we open fire at longer ranges than their accounts tell that the guns/cannons are modelled incorrectly.
It's not like cannon shells just fall out of hte nose and you have to be right on their six to place them there. They have a velocity, and depending on their velocity, the farther they can go before they fall significantly. That's why some cannon shells drop more substantially than others.
Pilot's in WWII fired both the MGs and cannons at the same time, does that mean we should too? Not at all, they just didn't have the experience we have. We can afford to die over and over to stupid mistakes, they couldn't.
They had to make every shot count, they had to ensure the way they flew guaranteed their lives were not in danger, and most importantly they didn't have nearly the number of hours 'flying' these things as we do.
It's all relative, when I was a newbie in '93 I had to be extremely close to get a shot. Now, after years and years of thousands of kills, I know at what ranges I can hit and at what ranges I can't and at how many Gs I can fire off rounds and how much lead I must pull to hit the target.
-SW
-
Hello friend's
Well, ok, will create film's and it will be sent them.
Although it is certain that aqui are many lives and we can be born thousand times also is it that that factor is due to consider in a simulation or to change the simulation aerial combat name for arcade aerial combat. I do not doubt the effectiveness and the understanding of our Lepthurn. friend as I either do not doubt the effectiveness and knowledge of my RAM friend (R4M) and was here, in the forums of AH, vilipendiated, humiliated and separated, and it gave exact data of trustworthy sources, they must consider all the opinions, are to favor or against the LW, USAF, RAF or any other aerial force.
A greeting friends
SUPONGO
Bien, ok, creare peliculas y se las mandare.
Si bien es cierto que aqui hay muchas vidas y podemos nacer mil veces tambien lo es que ese factor se debe tener en cuenta en una simulacion o cambiar el nombre de simulacion de combate aereo a arcade.
No dudo de la eficacia y el entendimiento de nuestro amigo Lepthurn. como tampoco dudo de la eficacia y conocimiento de mi amigo RAM (R4M) y el fue aqui, en los foros de AH, vilipendiado, humillado y apartado, y el daba datos exactos de fuentes fidedignas, deben tenerse en cuenta todas las opiniones, esten a favor o en contra de la LW, USAF, RAF o cualquier otra fuerza aerea.
Un saludo amigos
SUPONGO
-
Supongo, did you view those two films I posted above?
-SW
-
Hm, well, to be honest, long range shots are far simpler with .50's and Hispanos. 'd expect pilots flying planes with these wapons to have more films of long range shots than those flying planes with inferior guns.
-
Supongo ,warra a mi no me mentes en este foro si no quieres q se te echen encima como lobos...por ahora incluso parecen gente civilizada y todo. Increible pero cierto...ya veras como cambia ahora, ya. :).
My take on this matter is well known. in AH certain weapons (ahem, 50 cals and hispanos) feel like neutron accelerators while others are like hand-throwing stones. 2 weeks ago in a H2H I cut off a Tempest's tail with a single hispano flash from my tiffie, from 1.2K aprox, my FE. And I was NOT spraying. I laffed my ar$e off and almost fell outta the chair. The following day, winging with some JG54 people in a H2H I got killed in a similar way. Never got into AH H2H again since then :)
One of my last kills in the AH main arena was in a P38, at almost 950 yards. I also got lots of kills in a P47D11, but none of them under 250yards. All those kills were done with short bursts, not s&p firing...
If you say that those kills are realistic, allow me to disagree :)
I think that the rangefinders in the icons play a huge part in the unrealistic hit chances at long ranges, but there is also a lot to blame to the neutron accelerators wich saw off tails with singe hits. There was a good reason why the WWII pilots used to hold fire until they were at pointblank range, but in AH there must be a REAL good reason for people in hispano-armed birds NOT to open fire under 700 yards.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Is that what firing a neutron accelerator feels like?
What is the rate of fire, trajectory, and damage potential of a neutron accelerator like vs a turbolaser?
Could you give a reference for your particle weapon specs please?
-
Fatty, maybe he means a hyper-sonic particle accelerator. I find those match the trajectory, velocity and hitting/explosive power of a Hispano turbo-laser.
-SW
-
I like my .50's. Its often amusing to see a 109 level for a HO and me sprey them at 1k out. Its even better when I see an engine kill... of course when I go BOOM from a 30mm at 400 or less it aint so much fun but hey it all tastes the same.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Is that what firing a neutron accelerator feels like?
humm no, in fact I would give up a neutron accelerator in exchange for an Hispano ;)
-
Well I'm not asking you to believe me Supongo. I'm saying don't believe me, and don't believe RAM. Test for yourself. Look at the evidence. It it looks wrong, post the films, or have me post them for you. But don't base your conclusions on "feel" or "memory". Do some tests and film them. Then review your evidence carefully, and try to keep in mind the points I've raised about things that effect what we see here in AH. Then make your own decision. :)
RAM brought up a good point, in that the laser range finders contribute to the problem. They contribute in two ways actually, first they let us estimate the distance too accurately, and second they tell us how far the other guy was away on our FE when he shoots us. It gives us far more information about our shots, and gives us just enough information about the other guy's to mislead us so we can complain about it. :D The accurate range information alone is going to allow for longer range shooting. Combine this factor with the others I mention (we are better pilots and gunners, lag, lack of other random factors) and you have longer range effective gunnery. That DOES NOT mean that anything is modelled incorrectly, it just means the conditions are different.
Just a question RAM, but how do you know what range is reasonable for Jug pilots to have fired at? More to the point, how did THEY know? Right, they didn't ... they just estimated. Since they didn't have laser range finders, they just got "real close" so they couldn't miss. Just because they routinely fired a closer distances doesn't mean the guns are modelled wrong, they just had different circumstances. Since they didn't know what the range was, they just got so close they couldn't miss. We have more information than they had, we are better pilots and gunners, and we don't have other random factors screwing us up.
Until I see evidence to sugest otherwise, I still think the modelling is spot on in the context of the game. It also usually "feels right", and seems to match some of the anecdotes I have read. I'm not just basing my opinion on anecdotes... I've done tests personally when I thought something was weird. My point is that I've always come to the conclusion that my perceptions were what was wrong, and the game was modeling things properly. I encourage everyone who sees a problem to go test it, film the results, and discuss them here. I think just doing that will open a lot of folks' eyes, I know I learned a few things. :)
-
RAM capullo, me importa un huevo que se me hechen encima, si tienes razon la tienes, y punto. T'has enterao?
pos eso lo que digan los demas me la suda.
Chao so zorra
Supongo
-
Am I correct in thinking lethality is adjustable in H2H games?
-
garrido,
How is the Fw190 rolling to slowly in AH?
Here is the NACA & Ah chart:
(http://angelfire.com/nt/regoch/42.gif)
Thanks to Hristo for the image, I hope he doesn't mind me linking to it.
Here's some other comments on why the NACA test may not be completely applicable to AH:
Originally posted by Karnak:
The Fw190 and Spitfire (it also matches the NACA peak) both hit full deflection with only 50lbs of stick force ant cetain speeds. At higher speeds the highere AH stickforce simply means their roll rates decline at a slower rate than they do in the 50lb NACA test.
The thing that is odd is that both the NACA Spitfire and NACA Fw190 roll faster at low speed than the AH Spitfire and AH Fw190.
Of course, all this is just guessing, without confirmation from HTC we really have no way of being sure what is going on.
And:
All we know is that they roll too fast if AH limits the stick force to 50lbs. The same is true of the Fw190 at high speed. Maybe 50lbs doesn't deflect the aerilons as much as the amount of force modeled in AH.
If AH is modeling 75lbs of stick force then the aerilons would achieve higher deflection and thus the roll rate would be higher, up to the limits of the airframe. The Fw190's lightness on the stick might mean that 50lbs is able to achieve full aerilon deflection at some speeds, but then it declines faster than 75lbs of stick force.
See what I am getting at?
Originally posted by Widewing:
Take a look at the known control used for the NACA data. Stick force was limited to just 50 pounds. This will limit aileron deflection at higher speeds in some, if not all of the aircraft tested. Therefore, "real world" roll rates can be expected to vary from the NACA chart.
I hope that helps.
-
Lephturn
I posted 4 films months ago where i got kills at 950-1.0 with very few round shot (200 or less i think it was ).
RWY
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
Let me say this to all of you who have never fired anything bigger than a soft drink straw: If you have six .50 cal machine guns spread out across twenty feet and harmonized to converge at three hundred feet your cone of fire at nine hundred feet should be something on the order a sixty foot impact cone.
You be your own judge as to whether a single engined fighter fits nicely into a sixty foot diameter impact area :eek:
Y
Let's get the math right :) : the impact cone is 40 ft maximum diameter at 900 ft, not 60 ft. At 300 ft, the convergence, the cone is 0 ft diameter. It then has another 600 ft to go, or twice the 300 ft, so the cone spreads back out to twice the starting diameter (2*20ft = 40ft) which is the wingspan of a P47D.
715
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
Just a question RAM, but how do you know what range is reasonable for Jug pilots to have fired at? More to the point, how did THEY know? Right, they didn't ... they just estimated. Since they didn't have laser range finders, they just got "real close" so they couldn't miss. Just because they routinely fired a closer distances doesn't mean the guns are modelled wrong, they just had different circumstances. Since they didn't know what the range was, they just got so close they couldn't miss. We have more information than they had, we are better pilots and gunners, and we don't have other random factors screwing us up.
gunsights, Lepthurn. Knowing the wingspan of the enemy plane (wich was not hard because there were just 2 wingspans to remember ;)), and with the gunsights one could measure the range with a reasonable degree of accuracy. In fact IIRC it was the standard way to do that until the telemetric radar was used in the day fighter jets of the last part of Korea.
-
RAM is quite correct.
In the Battle of Britian the Spits and Hurries had a dial on the gunsight that the pilot would set to one of the available settings.
Me109
Me110
Stuka
He111
Or something like that list. When the dial was turned, the circle in the reflector gunsight would expand or contract to a set position. When the wingtips of the aircraft, Bf109 if the setting was Me109, touched the circle it meant the aircraft was in range and the pilot could commence firing.
Later in the war the gyroscopic gunsight was introduced and that would indicate where you had to aim in order to hit the target in a deflection shot. In tests on Spitfire IXs it dramatically increased the kill rate.
-
Oh, I'm quite aware of how they used gunsights in the fighters. My point is that the gunsights were set to X range. The pilots simply fired when the enemy "filled the sights". Sure they could "estimate" based on the gunsight, but they didn't have the luxuries we have. They didn't know "I fired at that guy at 800 yards". It was either close to the the right range, or it was outside of it. They couldn't "see what happens" at 900 yards like we can. They didn't get the chance to practice shooting at long range and knowing exactly how far they were shooting like we do. Nevermind the fact that they could only really estimate the range well when the enemy was in their gunsight. The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life. Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range. The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life. But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
Oh, I'm quite aware of how they used gunsights in the fighters. My point is that the gunsights were set to X range. The pilots simply fired when the enemy "filled the sights". Sure they could "estimate" based on the gunsight, but they didn't have the luxuries we have. They didn't know "I fired at that guy at 800 yards". It was either close to the the right range, or it was outside of it. They couldn't "see what happens" at 900 yards like we can. They didn't get the chance to practice shooting at long range and knowing exactly how far they were shooting like we do. Nevermind the fact that they could only really estimate the range well when the enemy was in their gunsight. The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life. Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range. The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life. But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.
I mostly agree and that is why I say that in an hypotetic HA with top realism settings, the rangefinder should be gone, or at least in a much less accurate way.
About the gun modelling, I just say what I think after seeing the effects of the long range hits in AH. Is just my opinion,sadly not backed up by any kind of proofs. but an opinion anyway :)
-
Hola de nuevo:
que alguien traduzca este post por favor.
Siempre, siempre hay que dar pruebas de lo que se dice, pero nadie las da en contra. que se le va a hacer.
piden una filmacion de impactos a mas de 700y que conlleven derribos, yo las pido de las de la WWII donde se vea que alguien es derribado a esas distancias.
Dicen que tenemos mas experiencia de vuelo que cualquier piloto de guerra real, pero por favor, no durariamos nada en un enfrentamiento contra un piloto real, ocurre que ellos no tenian iconos de identificacion ni de distancias, eviten el icono de distancia entre las 500y y 1.000y ya vera como no tenemos esa punteria, quiten el medidor de municion disponible y ya veremos si se hace el s&p. No somos mejores, simplemente volamos en un juego que se hace llamar smulador, pero que no lo es. modelen el daño motor y el cansancio fisico del piloto y veremos a esos N1K's y Spit's no pudiendo hacer esos virajes tan seguidos.
Y si mi dicen que todos los aviones estan con mas roll rate del real me estan dando la razon, AH esta mal modelado. Si impactar a 1000y con hispano y con un solo ping se pierde el timom y dando 5 a 250y a un N1K no se le hacen daños aparentes (pues sigue maniobrando igual) significa que el GM esta bien yo no me lo creo. Si para acertar a 100oy con hispano supone desviar menos el morro que para con un MG151 dar a 400y, perdone pero no me creo que el GM este bien.
Si voy detras de un Spit a 450 mph y el a 350 mph, hace un loop y mientras yo asciendo a 10 grados sobre la horizontal el es capaz de alcanzarme y despues dice que el Spit no esta overmodelled no estamos hablando del mismo juego.
Estoy convencido de que todos en AH han sido derribados por hispanos a distancias de mas de 700y, 800y e incluso 1000y pero me da la impresion que les da miedo decirlo por si son el blaco de criticas.
Estoy convencido que aqui, en AH, casi todos hemos visto maniobras imposibles sin perdida de E del Spit, no solo de N1K, pero nadie lo dice, a que tienen miedo? no lo se.
Me presentas un grafico, yo postee hace tiempo (y algun otro piloto tambien) un grafico que no tenia nada que ver con ese. curiosamente en el aqui presentado el 190 tiene un roll rate superior, en el que postee yo ( o di el enlace, no recuerdo) el 190 tenia un roll rate muy inferior. cual es el real?
Solo HTC lo sabe.
Quiere pruebas? las voy a dar, fimare un H2H desde los dos aviones, con hispano y 151, el lag influira, pero no tanto.
De todas maneras aqui se dice que se han posteado videos ya, y que se han visto matanzas a esas distancias. que ocurre? no vale la palabra de esos pilotos.
eliminen los iconos de distan cia entre las 500 y 1000y.
modelen el daño motor.
modelen la fatiga del piloto.
modelen correctamente todos los aviones, y puede que asi, AH no pierda pilotos dia a dia como esta ocurriendo.
Un saludo
SUPONGO
-
Any of you guys seen the ...Brass (i think it was made of) plate with cut-outs of an enemy plane at 3 different distances and when you held up the plate to look through the cutout, the planes profile would fill the appropriate size giving a range indication.
I believe that many WWII pilots got quite proficient at range estimation.
However ammo was a precious commonity and gambling with it would sure increase your chances of being out of ammo at a very inopportune moment.
Also it was very easy to be classified LMF-
Lack of Moral Fiber.
Some pilots were unjustly accused of LMF if their plane had mechanical problems.
Taking low percentange long range shots ,and running out of ammo prematurely and RTBing could also lead to a similar accusation.
There are so many factors that are different from the comfort of our computer station to the freezing adrenaline fear filled cockpit of a fighter screaming and groaning at 20,000 + feet.
While I am sure real life guns could do the same things done here in (virtual land).
You must remember that there was military disipline involved. And most pilots followed their training and the experience of their flight leader. Very few experimented or bucked the system, either from fear of failure within their immediate peer group,disiplinary action or god fearing sense of self preservation.
So many factors to compare aerial WWII gunnery in Real life to that in AH's simulated environment, that this will always be a subject for debate and controversy.
Im glad this thread has stayed civil :)
-
Just FYI, have a look at this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010916 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010916)
Skip all the early stuff and find Pyro's post about 2/3rds of the way down. Good info there. :)
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
The result is that they would never even attempt the shots we take in real life. Even if they did take them, they didn't have the info and feedback we have to learn to shoot at that range. The end result is that in AH we can connect with shots at longer ranges than they could in real life. But that fact DOES NOT mean the guns are modelled wrong.
EXACTLY what I've been saying (and crucified for) for the last two years Lephturn!
And NOW you open your mouth?????
Would have been nice to have had your support 6 months ago ... sheesh!
-
Well, I don't always jump into these discussions. Especially when if somebody has already expressed a similar viewpoint. I tend to pop in when I think folks are missing some information.
I may not have always been vocal about it, but I've always held that HTC's gunnery models are correct. The main reason we see a difference is that we are far more experienced and in a different situation than the real pilots were. Icons with rangefinders play a part as well. However, folks tend to blame "then gunnery model" when in my experience that part is right on the money.
Next time you want me to back you up, send me a note. :D